scream-of-consciousness;
"If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Who's on First?

JFC Chris! Are you daft?

WALLACE:
You — you just, sir, that he’s being —

SEKULOW: No, he’s not being investigated!

WALLACE: You just said that he’s being investigated.

SEKULOW:
No, Chris, I said that the — any — let me be crystal clear so you — you
completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware of any
investigation of the president of the United States, period.

WALLACE: Sir, you just said two times that he’s being investigated.

On
this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace had a
heated exchange with Jay Sekulow, who is member of President Donald
Trump’s legal team.

Partial transcript as follows:
WALLACE: I want to ask you a direct question, does the president think
that Rod Rosenstein has done anything wrong?

SEKULOW: The president has never said anything about Rod Rosenstein
doing anything wrong. Here’s what — what is the legal situation here.
There is a constitutional issue when you have this scenario. The
president made a determination based on consult of advice. He decided
ultimately. He’s the commander in chief. He gets to make that decision
that James Comey had a go. That was coming, by the way, from groups
right, left, and center over the last year. You — you and I know that.
So there had been concern about James Comey.

It was put forward in a memorandum — that’s what the president’s
referencing — from the deputy attorney general and the attorney general
requesting the removal of James Comey as the FBI director. And,
ultimately, that’s the president’s determination.

So here’s the constitutional threshold question, Chris. The president
takes action based on numerous events, including recommendations from
his attorney general and the deputy attorney general’s office. He takes
the action that they also, by the way, recommended. And now he’s being
investigated by the Department of Justice because the special counsel
under the special counsel relations reports still to the Department of
Justice. Not an independent counsel. So he’s being investigated for
taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general
recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination.
So that’s the constitutional threshold question here. That’s why, as I
said, no investigation —

WALLACE: Well, I — what — what — what’s the question (INAUDIBLE). I
mean you — you stated — you stated some facts. First of all, you’ve now
said that he is getting investigated after saying that you didn’t.

SEKULOW: No.

WALLACE: You — you just, sir, that he’s being —

SEKULOW: No, he’s not being investigated!

WALLACE: You just said that he’s being investigated.

SEKULOW: No, Chris, I said that the — any — let me be crystal clear so
you — you completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware
of any investigation of the president of the United States, period.

WALLACE: Sir, you just said two times that he’s being investigated.

SEKULOW: No. The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal
theory, Chris, of how the Constitution works. If, in fact, it was
correct that the president was being investigated, he would be
investigating for taking action that an agency told him to take. So
that is protected under the Constitution as his article one power.
That’s all I said. So I appreciate you trying to rephrase it, but I’m
just being really direct with you, Chris. This is — let me be —

WALLACE: No, I — I — sir, I didn’t rephrase it. The tape will speak —
Jay, the tape will speak for itself. You said he is being investigated.
And it’s not that big —

WALLACE: Wait a minute — wait a minute. Jay, and it’s not — Jay, it’s
not just being investigated for firing Comey. There’s also the question
of what he said to Comey when Comey was still the FBI director. So
there’s more than just the fact that he fired Comey.

SEKULOW: He — Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about
what the president’s tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of
the United States. That’s what you asked me. And I responded to what
that legal theory would be. So I do not appreciate you putting words in
my mouth when I’ve been crystal clear that the president is not and has
not been under investigation. I don’t think I can be any clearer than
that.

WALLACE: Well, you don’t know that he’s not under investigation again,
sir. I mean you might —

SEKULOW: You know, I can’t read the mind — you’re right, Chris, I can’t
read the minds of the special prosecutor.

SEKULOW: But I have not been notified. No one has been notified that he
is.

WALLACE: You don’t know whether he’s under investigation or not.

SEKULOW: Chris, I —

WALLACE: The question I’m asking you is, does he think that Rod
Rosenstein — it’s a very simple question — does he think that Rod
Rosenstein did anything wrong?

SEKULOW: The president has not expressed any opinion about Rod
Rosenstein.

WALLACE: Does he think that Robert Mueller has done anything wrong?

SEKULOW: First of all, he has not said anything about Robert Mueller.
And, Chris, let me say something here. You’re asking me if I had a
conversation, which I have not had, about Robert Mueller with the
president of the United States on — or anyone else for that matter. I
can’t discuss that and would that with you. Unlike James Comey, who
leaks information to the press, I actually respect the attorney-client
privilege. Apparently, he did not.

WALLACE: Does the President believe — well, you’re speaking for his
legal team, so you’re out here to represent him and tell us what the
president’s belief is, is that correct?

SEKULOW: No, I’m out here to tell you what the facts are and the legal
issues are. I’m not to tell you what the beliefs are. I’m not the
client’s conscience; I’m his lawyer.

WALLACE: I understand that and the — and the client — have you spoken
the — have you spoken to the president at all?

SEKULOW: Yes, but I’m not going to discuss those conversations with
you. Those are privileged under the attorney-client privilege.

WALLACE: Well, I assume that if he asked you to say something, for
instance, Marc Kasowitz said all kinds of things about — after Comey’s
testimony. I assumed he was speaking for the president

SEKULOW: Marc Kasowitz made a general statement to the press after the
testimony of James Comey. That’s what that was about. This — you’re
asking me now questions about what people are thinking in their minds,
which I don’t read minds, and you’re asking me also what I may or may
not have had a conversation with the president about and you understand
this. I respect the attorney-client privilege, unlike James Comey.

WALLACE: Does —

SEKULOW: I want to be real clear on that too. I’m not going to give you
conversations I’ve had with — have or have not had with the president
of the United States. So when I’ve had conversations with the president
of the United States —

WALLACE: Well, I — your —

SEKULOW: As his lawyer, it’s privileged, period.

WALLACE: Does the president think that Rosenstein, because you talked
about this constitutional theory that he took action, that’s on the
advice —

SEKULOW: Yes.

WALLACE: Although he says he didn’t take it on the advice of
Rosenstein, does he think that Rosenstein should recuse himself, and is
healing the groundwork to fire Rosenstein and Mueller?

SEKULOW: I’ve had no conversations, and I’ve heard nothing without that
at all. Nothing. I think this — Chris, this points out — let me tell
you one thing quickly about the constitutional theory, as you called
it. It’s actually called the Constitution. You know, the president has
certain (INAUDIBLE) authority under the Constitution. It’s —

WALLACE: Well, you called it the constitutional theory, sir.

SEKULOW: Yes, it is a constitutional theory based on the Constitution.

WALLACE: I understand that.

SEKULOW: Not so-called. It’s the constitutional theory. It’s part of
the Constitution. The president has inherent authority.

Here’s what you’re trying to — here’s what you’re trying to do, Chris,
and I appreciate that you’re — you’re trying to push back.

SEKULOW: No, Chris, I deal with fact and law. You were asking me to
read people’s minds. That I don’t do.

WALLACE: Well, don’t tell me what I’m trying to — well, don’t tell me
what I’m trying to do because you don’t know what I’m trying to do.
What I’m trying to get is a straight answer out of you. Let me ask you
this —

SEKULOW: Yes, well — sure.

WALLACE: As a matter of law, does the President think that he can be
indicted under the Constitution?

SEKULOW: The president — I haven’t had that conversation with the
president, but the president can’t be indicted under the Constitution
of the activity alleged in something like this. Of course not.

WALLACE: Why is that?

SEKULOW: Because there’s not an investigation. And there’s — there’s no
investigation against the president.

WALLACE: Well, you don’t know whether there’s an investigation. Oh,
boy, this is weird. You — you don’t know that there’s — whether there’s
an investigation. You just told us that.

SEKULOW: Chris, you’re asking me to speculate — so then what you’re
asking me to do is to speculate on —

WALLACE: And it would matter. I’m asking you as a matter of law, not
whether there’s an investigation. Does the president think he can be
indicted as president?

SEKULOW: For — for —

WALLACE: That’s a constitutional issue, isn’t it?

SEKULOW: For obstruction of justice? No, the Constitution’s —

WALLACE: No, for any of it.

SEKULOW: Now, Chris, you know, let’s — let’s be realistic here. You
know what the — the answer is. Can the president be indicted for
obstruction? You know what the position has been at the Department of
Justice since the 1970s and again stated in 2000. That’s not what
President — that’s now how you engage a president. There’s a political
process if somebody did something wrong. You’re talking about — you’re
conflating a constitutional process, criminal law, with an issue of
political consequence. So I am his lawyer. I’m not his political
advisor.

WALLACE: Senator Dianne Feinstein, a top Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, responded to the president’s tweet this week with
this statement. “The message the president is sending through his
tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn’t apply to him and
that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired.” Is she wrong, sir?

SEKULOW: Yes, she’s wrong. First of all, Dianne Feinstein also called
for an investigation of James Comey and Loretta Lynch for that whole
episode regarding her engagement and calling it a, quote, “matter,” not
an “investigation.” But with regard to this particular issue, I mean
the tweet — there’s nothing illegal or inappropriate about the tweet.
If the tweet came on the heels of a Washington Post story that had five
anonymous sources and didn’t even identify the agency from which those
sources came from, and that’s what he tweet in response to. It’s that
simple, period.

WALLACE: Final question, the president just — just added John Dowd, a
high-powered Washington lawyer, to his legal team. Should we expect him
to hire other criminal lawyers? And, in a sense, is he preparing for a
potential legal battle here?

SEKULOW: Look, I mean John Dowd is — is a legal legend, you know that,
in — in — in the — in Washington, D.C., and the president is doing the
appropriate thing by hiring lawyers necessary, if there was to be an
investigation, if there were to be an investigation, you have the
lawyers in place. We’ve got a great legal team led by Marc Kasowitz.
We’ve got John Dowd on the team. This is a solid team. Contrary to some
of the press reports, a deep team, if necessary.

WALLACE: Do you think — I — I — I misspoke. I’m going to ask one more
question. Because I’m not allowed to ask you what the president thinks,
do you think that he should stop —

SEKULOW: Of course.

WALLACE: Do you think he should stop tweeting about this case?

SEKULOW: Look, I — here’s the thing on that. You know, people have been
asking me that. Look, the president has changed the way in which
engagement goes in — I mean you’ve got great ratings, no doubt about
it, Chris. But let’s face it, the president speaks to 107 million
people through his social media platforms. He revolutionized the
election process by utilizing media in a different way. So I — I think,
look, the president knows the effectiveness of social media. He’s been
very effective at it. Again, I’m his lawyer, I deal with the issues.
Nothing that he’s tweeted is causing me any issues whatsoever at this
point. Nothing.

WALLACE: We’ll continue it and maybe this time we’ll get on this — you
know what, be here in studio and we can stay on the same wavelength.

SEKULOW: There we go.

WALLACE: All right, sir —

SEKULOW: Happy Father’s Day.

WALLACE: Happy Father’s Day to you too, sir.

via Damian Housman

This
is the damnedest thing I've heard a media-head say since .. since
Friday? The only way I can explain it is Chris Wallace has
undergone
some mind altering procedure that hard-wired a dialog into his
head. What else could it be? Whatever it is, Trump ought
get the
Surgeon General to declare the entire Washing press corps (or as Obama
says "corpse) insane, and a threat to national well being. [Video]

4 comments:

I wish they'd stop referring to the President as "commander in chief" when it's not a matter involving the military. He's commander in chief of the military as well as President of the US.

It also irks me when I hear (like I did on Fox recently) the experts in the news media refer to "Navy Soldiers." Similar to how they generally don't know a squad from a platoon from a company/troop, from a battalion/squadron, from a brigade/regiment/group, from a division, from a corps.

"And now he’s being investigated by the Department of Justice because the special counsel under the special counsel relations reports still to the Department of Justice. Not an independent counsel. So he’s being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination."

So, to be honest, it sure sounds like he said he's being investigated twice. It's tough to speak clearly and concisely off the cuff, but sometimes you have to admit you're not doing it. The rest of this is blather, too.